The Karnataka High Court held that income tax returns are personal information exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005, even to a spouse, unless larger public interest is shown, advising recourse before a competent matrimonial court.
KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court has ruled on the relationship between the Right to Information (RTI) Act and tax confidentiality, determining that income tax returns of an individual are considered personal information and cannot be disclosed to a spouse under the RTI Act, 2005, unless a demonstrable larger public interest is established.
The Court advised that the appropriate route for a wife seeking access to her husband’s income tax returns would be to request them through the competent matrimonial court.
A bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindaraj laid out comprehensive principles for future cases. It emphasized that when income tax returns or similar financial documents are requested under the RTI Act, Information Officers must first assess whether the information is personal under Section 8(1)(j), whether it is held in a fiduciary capacity, and whether a larger public interest exists.
Factual Backgrounds:
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by the Income Tax Officer and the Central Public Information Officer of the Centralised Processing Centre in Bengaluru, challenging a Central Information Commission order dated April 12, 2019.
The first respondent, the wife of an assessee, sought copies of her husband’s income tax returns for the assessment years 2012–2017, along with tax payment details and associated bank accounts. The CPIO rejected her request under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, asserting that the information was held in a fiduciary capacity and constituted third-party information.
The First Appellate Authority upheld this rejection, indicating that no larger public interest had been demonstrated. However, the Central Information Commission allowed the second appeal and mandated disclosure, referencing a previous High Court ruling in another case. Consequently, the Income Tax Department approached the High Court.
The primary questions before the Bench included:
- Are income tax returns “personal information” exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?
- Is the relationship between the Income Tax Department and an assessee fiduciary in nature under Section 8(1)(e)?
- Can a spouse claim access to such information under RTI in the absence of larger public interest?
- Does Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (a special statute governing the disclosure of tax information) override the general provisions of the RTI Act?
ALSO READ: Advocates Cannot Use RTI to Seek Case Details for Clients’ Cases: CIC
Analysis of the Court:
The Court heavily referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (SLP(C) No. 27734/2012, which established that details in income tax returns are classified as personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j), unless a larger public interest justifies it.
The High Court noted that income tax returns contain personal financial details, which may also include third-party transactional information. Furthermore, these returns are submitted under legal compulsion with an expectation of confidentiality.
The Court held that disclosing such information would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Income Tax Department collects tax returns under a framework of trust and statutory confidence, making the information private rather than public.
The Court also examined Section 138 of the Income-tax Act, which governs disclosures of tax-related information. Applying the legal principle “generalia specialibus non derogant (general law does not override special law)”, the Court concluded that the RTI Act, as a general law regarding information access, cannot undermine the confidentiality provisions of the Income-tax Act unless explicitly stated.
Consequently, the Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the CIC’s order, and reaffirmed that income tax returns and related financial details are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act in the absence of significant public interest. Additionally, it specified that the RTI Act cannot serve as a substitute for discovery mechanisms in private or matrimonial disputes.
The Court pointed out that marital disputes or maintenance claims alone do not inherently equate to “public interest,” and that the legal frameworks set forth in the Income Tax Act must be upheld prior to mandating the disclosure of confidential tax information.
ALSO READ: Judicial Officers’ Complaints Are Private: Chhattisgarh High Court Bars RTI Disclosure
Justice Govindaraj annulled an order from the Central Information Commission that had instructed the Income Tax Department to provide the husband’s tax returns and related financial information to his wife.
The judgment stated,
“It is declared that income tax returns, assessment particulars and related financial details of an assessee constitute personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and are exempt from disclosure under the said provision unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure,”
The Bench further elaborated,
“…the appropriate course for Respondent No. 1 was to seek production of the income tax returns through the competent matrimonial court, rather than by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI Act is not the appropriate mechanism for obtaining income tax returns of a spouse in the context of maintenance proceedings. The courts adjudicating maintenance claims have ample powers to summon documents and compel disclosure of financial information, and the procedural safeguards available in judicial proceedings are far more appropriate than the relatively blunt instrument of an RTI application,”
Advocate M. Dilip represented the petitioner, while Advocate Kemparaju represented the respondent.
Cause Title: Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Gulsanober & Anr. Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:11056
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES